The thesis attempts to formulate a behavioristc definition of normativity based on proposals by B. F. Skinner in the context of a general analysis of the problem of reconciling psychology with normative science, especially logic. An introduction states the problem and briefly traces its historical roots. Chapter 1 traces modern acceptance of the view that psychology is irrelevant to normative science to Husserl's and Frege's victorious arguments against nineteenth century psychologism, and aims to show them inconclusive against modern psychologies through (...) an in-depth analysis of them, particularly Husserl's arguments. Chapter 2 develops a definition of behaviorism through a historical analysis of J. B. Watson's writings of 1913 and, more briefly, B. F. Skinner's relation to operationism and logical positivism. Chapter 3 extracts a definition of natural rationality from Skinner's conception of operant behavior through an analogy with Carnap's theory of two probabilities. Chapter 4 develops a cultural rationality condition from Skinner's theories of problem solving, rules, and behavioral and cultural evolution. Chapter 5 contains a review and conclusions. Five appendices cover incidental topics from the first two chapters: the problem of privacy in the arguments against psychologism, accusations against behavioristic ideology, Watson's role in the emergence of behaviorism, Bergmann's Watson, and the "image-type" controversy of 1913. (shrink)

Behaviorism and the philosophy of the act are widely believed to be inconsistent with one another. I argue that both are true, Fulfilling the requirements of scientific psychology and the phenomenology of mind, Respectively. The key to understanding their mutual consistency lies in the idea of parallelism and its corresponding requirement that all descriptive features of mental states be analyzed as properties, None as relations (to anything physical). So the intentional link itself must be a 'logical' and not a descriptive (...) connection. More broadly, It is required to free the act from its origins in the metaphysical notion of 'activity' and the substance ontology from which that motion derives. (shrink)

It was not long ago that behaviourism was almost a contemptuous epithet, if not a contretemps career epitaph,and few theorists wished to be mistaken for behaviourists. However, there has been a recent shift of allianceswith the emergence of a new breed of researchers that openly advocate the incorporation of behaviourism intothe study of consciousness. This critical essay is therefore devoted to the examination of Rodney Cotterill’s workwhose theoretical orientation in the field of consciousness positions him among the eminent members of (...) thisgrowing group of theorists. (shrink)

This paper examines the relationship among behaviorism, constructivism and Socratic pedagogy. Specifically, it asks if a Socratic educator can be a constructivist or a behaviorist. In the first part of the paper, each learning theory, as it relates to the Socratic project, is explained. In the last section, the question of whether or not a Socratic teacher can subscribe to a constructivist or a behaviorist learning theory is addressed. The paper concludes by stating that while Socratic pedagogy shares some similarities (...) with each learning theory, ultimately it is fundamentally incompatible with both. (shrink)

We aim to show that far-related primates like humans and the capuchin monkeys show interesting correspondences in terms of artifact characterization and categorization. We investigate this issue by using a philosophically-inspired definition of physical artifact which, developed for human artifacts, turns out to be applicable for cross-species comparison. In this approach an artifact is created when an entity is intentionally selected and some capacities attributed to it (often characterizing a purpose). Behavioral studies suggest that this notion of artifact is not (...) specific to the human kind. On the basis of the results of a series of field observations and experiments on wild capuchin monkeys that routinely use stone hammers and anvils, we show that the notions of intentional selection and attributed capacity appear to be at play in capuchins as well. The study also suggests that functional criteria and contextualization play a fundamental role in terms of artifact recognition and categorization in nonhuman primates. (shrink)

This paper is a rejection of parsimonious behaviorism (PB). PB was proposed by Stemmer (2003) to avoid certain problems with radical behaviorism's (RB) appeal to covert behavior to account for mental phenomena. According to Stemmer, covert behavior was not clearly defined and its existence was not supported by empirical evidence. However, overt behavior is not as undefined, nor its existence as empirically unsupported as Stemmer claimed. Nor does PB avoid the problems, as it does not encourage us to seek a (...) definition or empirical evidence that supports this existence. Moreover, Stemmer did not define the entities he accepted as existent (physiological traces), nor did he cite empirical evidence that supported their existence or his proposed interpretation of mental phenomena. Also, his claim that PB is more parsimonious than RB rests on a fallacious acceptance of the existence of physiological traces and a misinterpretation of the explanatory role of physiological events in RB. Finally, Quine's repudiation theory does not avoid the questions of the status, nature, and location of mental entities in identity theories. Such questions are not fundamentally different from those raised by material entities in general. The questions are thus faced by any materialist position, Quine's repudiation theory included. (shrink)

The rationale, scientific necessity, and character of intentionality ascriptions (assertions that attribute beliefs, expectations, wishes and such to certain systems) remain unresolved issues in the philosophy of mind and psychology. Foxall's proposed resolution (2007), which he calls "Intentional Behaviorism" (IB), is that intentionality ascriptions should be tied to the experimental analysis of behavior, nervous systems, and evolutionary considerations. Foxall's tone of scientific pluralism and attention to academic philosophy and psychology are steps in the right direction. However, I remain skeptical about (...) IB's adequacy as a philosophical underpinning of psychology. My skepticism stems from IB's a-ontological character (which ignores the nature of intentionality, a major issue in psychology), pragmatist inclination (which invites relativism), and adoption of the linguistic view of intentionality, where intensionality is the defining criterion of intentionality. The linguistic view forces us either to restrict intentionality to humans, a deal-breaker for animal cognition psychologists, of to talk of mental language, a deal-breaker for operant psychologists. Also, an emphasis on extensionality, which is about logical validity and not soundness, fails to capture the emphasis of scientific psychology on evidence as a rationality criterion. Finally, if IB presupposes or entails linguistic anti-nativism, it is unlikely to appeal to evolutionary psychologists. IB would thus be better off by abandoning the linguistic view of intentionality. (shrink)

This paper is a conceptual analysis of the theory debate in psychology, as carried out by cognitivists and radical behaviorists. The debate has focused on the necessity of theories in psychology. However, the logically primary issue is the nature of theories, or what theories are. This claim stems from the fact that cognitivists and radical behaviorists adopt disparate accounts of the nature of theories. The cognitivists' account is closely akin to the received view from logical positivism, where theories are collections (...) of statements and theoretical terms are restricted to designate unobservable entities. Radical behaviorists also conceive theories as collections of statements, but restrict theoretical terms in psychology to designate observable entities. If each side approaches the necessity issue with its preferred account, both agree that theories are necessary in psychology. Hence, there is no disagreement over the necessity of theories in psychology per se, only over the nature of theories. The received view, however, has been shown to suffer from irreparable difficulties that have led to its total rejection in post-positivistic philosophy of science. Alternative accounts, like the structuralist and semantic views, do not raise the issue of whether theories are necessary in psychology. (shrink)

Introductory texts in the philosophy of mind often begin with a discussion of behaviourism, presented as one of the few theories of mind that have been conclusively refuted. But matters are not that simple: behaviourism, in one form or another, is still alive and kicking.

Recently there has been a great deal of argument about what justifies references to representational states in explanations of behavior. I discuss Jerry Fodor's claim that it is necessary to ascribe representational states to organisms that respond to "nonnomic properties" of stimuli. Zenon Pylyshyn's (apparently equivalent) claim that it is necessary to ascribe representational states to organisms that respond to "nonprojectable properties" of stimuli and Fodor's claim that an organism's ability to respond to nonnomic properties of stimuli is a criterion (...) of its having representational states. I argue that if Fodor's account of how organisms respond to nonnomic properties of stimuli is correct, we could always replace explanations that appeal to nonnomic properties of stimuli with explanations that appeal only to nomic properties of stimuli. I also argue that, according to Fodor's account, we could not determine whether an organism is responding to nonnomic properties of stimuli unless we already knew whether the explanation of the response includes a reference to a representational state. Thus, given Fodor's account, there is no noncircular way of arguing that it is necessary to ascribe representational states to organisms because they respond to nonnomic properties of stimuli. Finally, I argue that Fodor has not actually provided an account of how organisms respond to nonnomic properties of stimuli and I discuss the prospects of a different strategy for linking the nonnomic properties of stimuli to representational states. (shrink)

I will first discuss how social interactions organize, coordinate, and specialize as “artifacts,” tools; how these tools are not only for coordination but for achieving something, for some outcome (goal/function), for a collective work. In particular, I will argue that these artifacts specify (predict and prescribe) the mental contents of the participants, both in terms of beliefs and acceptances and in terms of motives and plans. We have to revise the behavioristic view of “scripts” and “roles”; when we play a (...) role we wear a “mind.” No collective action would be possible without shared and/or ascribed mental contents. This is also very crucial for a central form of automatic mind-reading (mind ascription). Second, I will argue that often what really matters is the ascribed/prescribed, worn, mind not the real, private one. We have to play (like in the symbolic play) “as if” we had those mental contents. This social convention and mutual assumption makes the interaction work. The ascribed beliefs and goals are not necessarily explicitly there; they might be just implicit as inactive (we act just by routine and automatically) or implicit as potential. The coordination and social action works thanks to these “as if” (ascribed and pretended) minds, thanks to those conventional constructs. Our social minds for social interactions are coordination artifacts and social institutions. (shrink)

The object of this article is not to criticize Professor Watson's psychology, still less his physiology; neither do I wish to attempt a fundamental metaphysical criticism, such as that contained in Professor Lloyd Morgan's article in the April number of the Journal, but it appears to me that a purely logical criticism, admitting Professor Watson's facts and observations, and assuming his mechanistic point of view, may be a useful preliminary to such wider and more fundamental inquiry.

B.F. Skinner and Behaviorism in American Culture is one of a small but growing library of volumes that focus on the life and contributions of the eminent behavioral psychologist. During Skinner’s lifetime, these volumes included B.F. Skinner: The Man and His Ideas , Festschrift for B.F. Skinner , The Skinner Primer: Behind Freedom and Dignity , What Is B.F. Skinner Really Saying? , Skinner’s Philosophy , Skinner for the Classroom , a special issue of Behavioral and Brain Sciences , and (...) B.F. Skinner: Consensus and Controversy . In 1977 John A. Weigel published a brief biography of Skinner, and Skinner himself published a three-volume autobiography between 1976 and 1983. (shrink)